we're well on the road to delivering a brexit that'll make britain prosperous, strong and secure. we'll get it done and we'll get it done in a very successful and very timely way. we are on course to deliver on the sovereign vote of the british people to leave the european union, and that's what we'll be doing. but to what end? tonight, as the eu says talks can move into the second phase, we ask what comes next in the great brexit fandango. now that tories have defied theresa may once, tonight she seems to have seen off another rebellion with a concession on the date we leave the eu. i'll be talking to the arch brexiteerjacob rees—mogg and rebel ken clarke. and "yesterday is history, tomorrow's a mystery" is part of a famous phrase — tonight we look ahead to the mystery. will britain, separate from the eu, embrace a different identity — more dynamic, international, a bold new direction? or will we go the other way — separate, smaller, and inward looking? we've assembled guests who each have a different vision of the future. also tonight... i called it geronimo, my friend.
compared with the condoms of today, it was like wearing the inner tube of a cycle. if it's so much easier and better now, why are almost half of under 25—year—olds not using a condom with a new partner? what happened to "no glove, no love? " is it the element of danger? is it carelessness? is it drink? we'll be talking to one person who suffered the consequences and another who preaches safe sex. good evening. at the end of a brutal parliamentary week for the government over brexit, theresa may tonight appears to have avoided another rebellion by compromising over the government's attempt to enshrine the date of britain's eu departure in law. and in brussels today, eu leaders — with may absent and back home — took less than half an hour to formally agree to move onto the second stage of talks. but the document "calls on the uk
to provide further clarity on its position on the framework for the future relationship," and there is much uncertainty to come. so where do we stand at the end of this week? what do our european partners make of us now? and what is the road ahead when it comes to this next phase of negotiations? our political editor, nick watt, reports from brussels. it's a season of peace, a season of goodwill. and, apparently, time for a generosity of spirit. but in brussels, there are limits to that christmas munificence. the atmosphere at this summit is completely different to the last gathering here in the autumn. eu leaders have developed a grudging respect for theresa may and they've decided to offer her a small helping hand. so the prime minister has been given a breathing space to allow her to formulate an agreed cabinet position on the uk's future trading relationship with the eu. but on the fundamentals,
the eu is not going soft. the uk's decision to leave the single market means that the eu is saying, your future relationship will be that little more distant. the hope is that the breather will allow the uk to shape the uk's guidelines for the future trade negotiations and the prime minister does want to press on with those talks once the uk has fully established its position. a process that will move forward decisively at the cabinet next week. in the new year, david davis and michel barnier will start to negotiate the transition period. they will also touch informally on the future trade relationship. if the transition talks conclude successfully, eu leaders will agree to launch more formal discussions on a future trade relationship in march. that'll leave seven months before the informal eu deadline for
the overall withdrawal agreement. so it will be quite a journey. and europe's two most powerful leaders put on a show of unity today to deliver what they regard as some home truths. translation: i did not participate in the referendum and i certainly would not have voted for britain leaving the union. and so what we have to realise, what we have to implement, is what the brits tell us is their wish. to the extent that this is reconcilable with our wishes and enables us in the future to have good relations with our partner, britain. britain will decide, they have told us they do not want to stay in the single market, simply because complete freedom of movement is something they cannot sign on to. and we said you cannot stay in the single market with just some freedoms, you have to accept all of the full freedoms. we need to respect not only the sovereignty of the british
people but also their own rules. what i can tell you from our perspective is that the decisions will be taken in order to comply with two goals. solidarity with ireland and then compliance with the single market. so we've just had a rare event at european council. ajoint press conference between the president of france and the german chancellor. on brexit, they make clear that the next stage will be far more challenging and they will apply the rules of the eu. but the principal message was about the challenges for the remaining members of the european union on defence cooperation and on the future of the euro. so the message is pretty clear. no privileges for the uk and the eu is moving on. and those brussels habits die hard as the summit spinning kicks off. but sadness hangs in the air. i think that the overall atmospherics is not a negative one. having said that, one should always keep in mind that this is a divorce. and all divorces are not
a happy occasion. so people are, in a way, satisfied that the divorce proceedings can now proceed in an orderly way. but still, there are many people who, although they understand and respect the decision of the united kingdom to leave, they feel sad about it. europe's capital enters christmas in sombre mood. brexit is underway but the really hard bargaining lies ahead. nick's in brussels for us. what are you hearing about what happens next? obviously, the next immediate phase is a transition, negotiations on the implementation phase, and there are interesting points in brussels about the main concerns of the leave campaigners — eu sources said that during the transition phase the uk would be absolutely at liberty to negotiate free—trade deals with
countries around the world although they would not be able to implement them until the uk has fully left the eu. but if the uk in those negotiations with those free—trade deals adopt a go—it—alone approach, that it would diverge in a dramatic way from eu regulations, then that would create problems, problems for those countries negotiating because the eu would say, what about relations with us? and also make it difficult, the eu says, for the uk to roll over its involvement in the current eu trade deals it is involved in and might continue to want to have a relationship with. thanks very much indeed. well, next week, cabinet discussions about what brexit "end state" the government should be aiming for are due to kick off. we're joined by the conservative mps jacob rees—mogg and ken clarke. jacob, good evening. last night, theresa may won applause in the eu.
will you be applauding her tonight? i am always applauding her, she is an excellent prime minister giving clear leadership of brexit. are you happy that you are going to be in the eu with all of its structures and constraints and its laws, until 2021? as i understand it, that is a position set out by the european union and it is not the law, this is the beginning of the negotiations, the eu said its intention is during the transition period we will be bound by the single market and the european court but the british government has not accepted that and it would be very unwise to. it sounded like theresa may had accepted that, all suggesting this is still up for grabs? i have got here the statement issued by the european union and this was issued by the 27 member
states, it was not agreed by the british government. it would be ridiculous. you are suggesting... coming away from brussels last night, it was clear that theresa may, not you, theresa may thinks that in the transition period we are going to have to take and not make eu laws and accept the four freedoms and live by the european court. that would mean staying within the european union for two years which is not the prime minister's position but the prime minister has said she is in favour of an implementation which means we leave
in march 2019 and the consequences are ever limited and the transition, which the eu is offering, that means we are still effectively in the eu for the following two years, we cannot accept the senior law of the uk coming from the european union. when we're outside and no longer have anyjudge on the european court. what does that mean? we cannot possibly accept? are you about to rebel on this? are you going tojump up and down on this? that is not the position of the government. i am notjumping up and down, i'm sitting down calmly and discussing this with you. but we cannot be a colony of the eu for two years from 2019 until 2021, accepting laws made without any say—so of the british people, parliament or people. that is not leaving the european union, that is being a vassal state and i would be surprised if that was government policy. the rebels have got theresa may on the run.
they have got to back away the final date. you think she is being driven by people like ken clarke? mr clarke is a very influential figure within the conservative party and he is entitled to rebel, as i was entitled to rebel when david cameron was a prime minister. i think some of the criticism made of the strong pro—europeans has been very unfair but busy driving government policy? no. it is clear that we will leave, negotiations are moving towards that and we will be out of the single market and the customs union. which is tremendously important. but he is entitled and right to make his long—held and profoundly held views known. thank you. ken clarke, turning to you, i will ask you for your interpretation of what happens in the transition period but the daily mail called you a self consumed malcontent? that is the right description?
there is a lot of silly stuff in the right—wing newspapers and i would have thought later that it was obvious that we have not in any way undermined the government's negotiating position or strengthened jeremy corbyn and we certainly have not discussed any amendment to stop bus leaving the eu. nonsense. the arguments are all about what happens in parliament. the fact is, it was always a mistake to think that parliament was not going to have the final say over the details of the hugely important deal which will determine our relationships with europe and the rest of the world, politically and economically, for the next generation. you say it is clear that we will leave and that is not the position you wanted to be in, you voted against article 50,
you are the arch rebel in that case. how can the party get through the next few months if what you and jacob rees—mogg are saying are diametrically opposed? the argument about the transition period must be resolved, the speech in florence was a first—time theresa may made it clear she accepts we cannotjust go off the cliff edge in march 2019, you will not conceivably finished negotiating the longer term relationship by then, for two years, probably more, you will need a period in which we carry on with the same relationship we have right now. we will no longer be members, we will be attending councils as ministers, none of that, but we will have free—trade and we will have free trade on the present terms. it would be a disaster because we have not finished the negotiations in march 2019, if we started raising tariff barriers and regulatory barriers and customs barriers. i doubt we would get planning permission for lorry parks in that time! over two years you continue
economically, exactly as we are right now, but politically you have left the union. that seems quite easy to negotiate. i think that is where we will be. so you do not think we will accept the four freedoms. and you you do not think we will accept the fourfreedoms. and you don't think we will be bound by any new laws within that period was to mark exactly the opposite. within that period was to mark exactly the oppositelj within that period was to mark exactly the opposite. i say we stay on the same terms we do now. we will be in the customs union and the single market and continue to follow the rules of the single market, which may change. so internal party squabbling, no fixed position, will that lead to more stuff like anna soubry‘s threats to hang dominic grieve, death threats, have you received any death threats? i have got one, yes,
but i have had them before. that is all the silly nonsense which a lot of silly right—wing newspaper reporting helped build up. defeat on an amendment, which governments often suffer, the defeat was on the subject of parliamentary accountability, and all the stuff that spun from it was complete nonsense, the amendment that was carried had nothing to do with whether we leave the european union, it had nothing to do with whetherjeremy corbyn may or may not be prime minister. it was about the government being properly and sensibly accountable to parliament. thank you both very much indeed. remember safe sex? almost half of all under 25s do not use a condom when they are having sex with a new partner. that shocking figure is from a new survey by public health england and yougov. it's probably why last year there were more than 141,000 chlamydia and gonorrhoea diagnoses in people between the ages of 16 and 24.
both stis, if not treated, can lead to infertility. such is the problem that the government is about to launch its first sexual health campaign in eight years. it's all a lot to take in when most of us thought things had moved on. look what we had to put up with. i called it geronimo, my friend. compared with the condoms of today, it was like wearing the inner tube of a cycle. it wasn't disposable, like the modern condoms. it was designed to be used again and again! noah is a college student, and ella harvey is the welfare representative at queen mary's students' union. good evening to both of you. first of all, tell me what happened to you. i transmitted chlamydia by having unprotected sex with a new partner, someone who i had known before, so obviously i trusted them, but foolishly, i have
learned my lesson now. but i got side effects quite quickly, and what i did, which i would recommend to a lot of young people, if you see anything out of the ordinary, any side effects, get checked out soon, because if it is something, better to nip it in the bud. so you knew this partner, somebody you had been friendly with, you did not know that she had chlamydia. no. and she didn't know. exactly. so you had sex with her, thinking that whatever protection she had meant she wouldn't get pregnant, but you never thought about protection for the sake of health. exactly. why didn't you use a condom? like a lot of young teens in the moment, it is a heat of the moment thing, it is not a top priority, and you do look past some important things which may have serious ramifications in the future.
did you know what chlamydia was? i had heard of it a little bit at school, but it hadn't been hugely, hugely educated to me. but that is just personally me, throughout the uk, you know, sexual health education is quite on point at the moment. ella, noah's story, is it fairly typical? i think it is very typical of most people between the ages of 16 and 24, and even older as well. i think that is a really common experience to have, and yeah, i mean... i think it is extraordinary, because we went through this whole time of talking about safe sex, it was related to pregnancy more than anything else, 141,000 cases of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in under 25s. a lot of that has to do with what you said, about wanting to detect against pregnancy, and with things like the implant and the coil, they are brilliant and really helpful, but obviously
they don't protect against stis, which is something that a lot of people do not consider. women do not display symptoms of chlamydia, and it is interesting, because if it was a case that affected men's fertility, i think the attitude may be different. i agree, i think the attitude would be quite different, and i think a lot of the problems, as i have seen my role as well be representative, it is something that myself and my colleagues are trying to tackle. if this sort of gendered attitude to sexual health is something that can be perceived as a negative attitude, but i don't think it necessarily is. is it that if you think that the partner you have is protecting herself from pregnancy, you are prepared to take a risk?
definitely not, actually, i have really learned my lesson, but i would say to anyone, even if you know the person, never have unprotected sex. isn't the conversation too difficult to have? and also, is it the case that it is just drink and spontaneity? yeah, i think definitely, and another thing, are not prioritising bringing a condom when they go out, so personally it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. i am surprised that so many young women will take the risk of sexual disease. imean... yeah, but i think that i am surprised as well that i think, when you are educated about sexual health at school and that college, i don't think that the emphasis is particularly gendered, i don't think there is a massive emphasis either way. and is the new campaign going to work?
i think it would have to be more sex positive, it would have to include the idea that women are allowed to have sex and enjoy sex, and with that comes responsibility from the male and female perspectives. thank you both very much indeed. as we move towards the end of the year and have cleared the first brexit hurdle, can we look ahead to our future outside of the eu, beyond 2021? what will it mean for the image that we project to the world? is this a chance to reinvent ourselves? we did with the industrial revolution, empire, and after the second world war. so what next? i'm joined by the writer sarfraz manzoor, rebecca walton is regional director for europe at the british council, and from stanford university, the historian niall ferguson. good evening, all of you, i would like to bring in first of all with you, niall, what is your version and your vision, i should say, for the future of britain after 2021?
say the next five years. well, i would love to believe what the brexiteers promise, that by voting to leave the european union, we become global britain and perhaps part of a vital new rejuvenated anglosphere, but my impression is that the opposite is happening, that the divorce process, which may well still be going on five years from now is so absorbing british political culture that we have become significantly more parochial since the referendum, more inward looking. i visit britain regularly from the united states, and i am struck every time i come byjust how far brexit is consuming us and causing us to turn inwards, rather than outwards. in that sense, their plan is going rather wrong. if you say it is the political class that does not have the wherewithal to rise above this and lead
us to a new beginning, maybe it is other people, culturalfigures, industrialists, scientists, maybe people have got to say, we all voted for this in a referendum, we cannot leave it to politicians to define our place in the world. well, part of the problem, kirsty, is that i think there was an assumption back in 2016 that something was happening simultaneously in the united states that would create a new atlantic relationship. that something, of course, was the populist wave that produced donald trump, and there was a brief moment when he talked about brexit and people were excited about trump, but in late 2017 it is clear that british people are about as negative on donald trump as people on the european continent. it is just one of those signs of how european we are that we hate donald trump almost as much as the germans, the dutch and the swedes do!
so the problem with the brexit vision of a global britain is that if global britain does not include the united states and does not include a broader anglosphere, then what exactly is it? i will ask the british council, you are charged with forging new international relations, creating new bonds, maybe it will not be towards america, but you see this as an opportunity to reinvent? i think re—find as well as reinvent, because we have been a global nation, and the idea we are suddenly emerging after the referendum seems bizarre. we were a global nation for 400 years, 500 years, if nothing else. so i think re—finding that connection with other parts of the world, yes, very important, if we are going to make this reinvention, as you call it, that is where we will turn. we may have to reinvent the relationship with the rest
of the european union. indeed we do, but there is a lot of tolerance for that. picking up on what niall said, this consuming conversation about the divorce is not consuming most europeans, it is the bureaucrats, but the people of europe have moved on already — they have their own problems, their own identity issues, migration issues, industrialists use, developing their own economies. they are all doing that, and they see us was a friend, so the divorce is not such a huge gap. sarfraz manzoor, we are in a situation now where the country is divided, by nations, locally, city by city, urban and rural — what is the mechanism by which we come together and become very proactive in forging and making the country look physically different? you have got 90 seconds for this?!
it seems like there is a disconnect between the first part of the programme, the technicalities, the discussions et cetera, and the reason why people voted for brexit. for me, it was an emotional moment, a protest vote that has been turned into a viable policy, so the question about division, for me, you have got people who are yearning for a simple past, a vision of britain which has fewer immigrants. monocultural? where they feel more comfortable, perhaps because they feel they have not economically benefited, perhaps because they do not feel politicians have spoken for them, and then the remainers be a more comfortable with that. this vision of britain, how do you do something which does notjust return to old ideas about britain alone which do not really include the empire in the same way, do not include the new arrivals? it is about trying to create a new version of britain. and who does that?
a lot of things will not really change, it seems to me, people are still wanting to go to universities across europe, people from europe will want to come here, the arts things will carry on, so for me it is symbolic, do we want england or britain to feel small or feel like we are connected? personally, the wider the label, the more comfortable i feel. niall ferguson, where does our economic strength like, high—end engineering, medical science, the creative industries? how do we make a new mark on the world? well, the united kingdom sold itself, you may remember, as cool britannia back in the 1990s, and i think part of the charm of brexit for the rest of the world is that we are going to market ourselves as square britannia, people realise how appealing —— people don't
realise how appealing jacob rees—mogg is known as a character around the world... please, he is charming but... he is a wonderfully stereotypical figure. charming as that is, we have to say that the whole point about this is to free us up to have international trade, new relationships, how do we do that? the world is complex, having a square image will not keep us in the mainstream of a fast—moving world, we need tojoin in with the tone that recognises strengths without boasting, and i think that we take very quickly in britain from a position of great strength in many areas, but we then tend to use it in some way that is not quite as alluring as you want to bring people to you. just speaking up about the charming jacob rees—mogg, one of the problems is, i don't think there are people, particularly in politics, speaking in an optimistic vision
of what it means to be british. why do we leave that to the politicians? maybe those are things that happen organically through culture, festivals, films, books, maybe the things that people consume and experience, rather than top—down leaders. do you think, as the british council, that we can make much more of our relationships in the commonwealth, and that perhaps canada is doing better than us? the commonwealth is there, kirsty, but we have not been paying enough attention to it to look like a member that is absolutely part of the family. there is a conundrum in that, the australians and canadians have taken leadership of the commonwealth, and we would need to ask very nicely if we can come back in, in a way, despite the leadership with the queen. what is our best chance, niall ferguson, in the next decade,
for greatness, to put the great back in britain? well, i don't think the rest of the world expects greatness from post—brexit britain. i think light relief, comedy, those are the things that we have excelled at, rather like popular music. the paradox of britain is that we have got steadily worse at doing things like trade agreements, complex negotiations, ultimately brexit happened because a complex negotiation with the european union about britain's special status went horribly wrong for david cameron, and i think the negotiations of the divorce are also going pretty wrong, because david davis is not a match for michel barnier. luckily, we are still very good at entertainment and pretty good at most forms of culture, and that is why people will continue